- Joined
- Jun 29, 2011
- Messages
- 28,217
- Reaction score
- 15
They need to go through a few plaques of their own to build up immune system so they can fight back against old world hordes.
The Chinese could very easily colonize North America if it was still in the stone age today.
Bro, nobody thinks that.......All Societies back then were fucked up and killed eachother, including Amerindians.
The Amerindians had a great civilization, wtf are you talking about? Even the Spaniards were impressed by the Aztec's engineering.
Would they had advanced and been as powerful as Europe/Asia...Yes.
Keep in mind, it was much easier for Europeans to advance because they had much more ideas to steal from, including from Asia....The old world simply had more people thus more possibilities to improve....In europe for example, they could see some technological break through in the middle east, thus they would build upon it.
Europeans build a lot of their ideas from the middle eastern people.
Amerindians, only had themselves......They didn't have all these other continents with ideas to steal from like Europe.
I say the Amerindians would of become much more advance than Europe, all by themselves.
If Europeans didn't conquer them. I've been thinking about this a lot every time our Prime Minister opens his cuckhole when spitting his poison about natives. We are taught that basically, white Europeans imported war, slavery, and genocide to North America. But the Natives were doing this to each other for thousands of years before we came. We are taught that we are responsible for their demise, which we are.
But what would have been their fate if we didn't come? Would they have evolved from the stone age and created civilization that would have contended with others? Would they have been conquered by the Chinese? Would they have remained in the same state of perpetual war and slavery?
Discuss.
I can refine it for you, since you can't engage unless it's given to you on a silver platter.
Where would natives be today if Europeans didn't conquer them?
I reckon the Aztecs would've conquered a large part of America. Part of the reason they fell is because Cortez was able to ally with rival tribes that rebelled against Aztec dominance. Alone, he probably wouldn't have been able to bring them down. Hundreds of thousands of Tlaxcalans assisted him in his attempts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tlaxcala_(Nahua_state)
The Zulus would've probably conquered much of South Africa if Britain didn't interfere.
Yep, that's my reckoning as well. The Aztecs were running out of resources and they had no problem expanding out at other people's expense. I think they would have moved up and settled North America. I'm curious if that would have stopped their human sacrifices since it's theorized they resorted to that out of desperation since their agricultural land was diminishing to a point they couldn't sustain their population. An Aztec nation not centered around war and sacrifices would be an interesting place to see develop. I do think the Europeans could have settled in North America without the genocide, the active role of removing Native American land, population, and culture is what the crime was. Though France was always cool about respecting culture and the English eventually came around, it was America and Manifest Destiny that really went after them with genocide.I reckon the Aztecs would've conquered a large part of America. Part of the reason they fell is because Cortes was able to ally with rival tribes that rebelled against Aztec dominance. Alone, he probably wouldn't have been able to bring them down. Hundreds of thousands of Tlaxcalans assisted him in his attempts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tlaxcala_(Nahua_state)
The Zulus would've probably conquered much of South Africa if Britain didn't interfere.
they would have invaded Europe with armored buffalo
I don't know about that, the Ojibwe had a knack for eating fallen warriors on the other side, when not dancing around with their scalps. I'm not as familiar with war in the rest of North America, but I don't think they were particularly more peaceful in war than anywhere else in the world. I could be wrong though. Even European war used to involve a lot less casualties with the way they waged it, the 19th-20 centuries really increased the body counts.It’s not entirely innaccurate to say Europeans brought war over to the new world. “Wars” fought between native nations typically were low intensity with very few casualties.
In some cultures they didn’t even try and kill each other; their wars were more sport than anything else.
There were exceptions certainly but Indian wars before Europeans arrived typically were not very violent. At least not compared to European wars.
Why do you think North American Indians wouldn't have evolved too? And even though the buffalo thing was a joke, elephants weren't that great in war. They were just as likely to do damage to their own side and very limited geographically. They looked cool as shit, but they didn't win wars.They will stayed more or less the same, if we speak of north american natives
The atzecs could have evolved a lot if the spaniards did'nt buttfucked them, but still at slower pace than the europeans because they (atzec) did'nt got enough powerful enemies
Armored elephant > armored bison
But in an Isolated Americas can the astec build war technology that is comparable to a renaisance European Army or a Chinese late medieval Army Empire?
I have no doubt the Aztecas are inteligent and can build computers and bombs if they have the resources. The key woard is reasources without access to China they wont have gun powxer and other Chems.
And that may make conquering a problem.
But it will be an interesting alternate history if the Aztecs are the once to advance and discover Africa and Europe instead the other wayh arround
Ojibwe were girl scouts compares to the Comanche or the plains Sioux.I don't know about that, the Ojibwe had a knack for eating fallen warriors on the other side, when not dancing around with their scalps. I'm not as familiar with war in the rest of North America, but I don't think they were particularly more peaceful in war than anywhere else in the world. I could be wrong though. Even European war used to involve a lot less casualties with the way they waged it, the 19th-20 centuries really increased the body counts.
Well the Comanche were the Apache's bitches until they got ahold of the horse that Europeans brought over. The Apache saw it as food, the Comanche saw it a tool of war. And the Ojibwe fought against the Sioux and pushed them back in to Minnesota and Dakota.Ojibwe were girl scouts compares to the Comanche or the plains Sioux.
Much like Africa, they were technologically too far behind to not be conquered/exploited by whoever came along next.